Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

More questions about classicals
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=23831		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Brock Poling [ Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  More questions about classicals
This is aimed at the classical folks and is an extension of my earlier questions about what is and isn't accepted within the classical marketplace. These questions are not as much about the construciton of the guitars as they are about "what is acceptable" by the classical guitar market.

Bogdanovich seems to be building with some more modern ideas, laminated sides, etc. Do these technologies seem to be used only on more modern classical designs, or would it be accepted to find these building techniques on a Torres or Hauser? We talked earlier about "building to the plan" but I am unclear if mixing in these ideas would be considered a kluge or just a modern take on a classic design. Again, I am asking from the POV of what does the market think/expect, not necessarily what will make a better guitar.

How about carbon fiber in the neck? I know you don't really need it for strength, but on my steel strings I find necks with carbon fiber give better note to note separation and a stronger clearer voice as you move up the neck. I would be interested in doing that on a classical too, but again... accepted or not?

Design. Let's face it, there isn't a lot of aesthetic latitude going on in classicals. I know the rosettes and headstocks are the makers marks, but when building classic styles such as the Torres, Hauser, etc. how permissible is it to reproduce these guitars faithfully vs. changing these aesthetics? Is it better to build it to the plan, or is it considered in bad taste to reproduce another makers signature appointments? I am not sure what the expectation is from the classical market.


As I have said earlier, I really have no intentions on making and selling classicals, but what I would like to do is build one that would be smiled upon by that market. I am trying to get my finger on the pulse of what is and isn't acceptable.
Author:  douglas ingram [ Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
There are so many details that contribute to the final tone of a classical that, if you want to arrive in the neighbourhood of the original, you need to follow the original as closely as possible. The details are critical.

If you don't worry about such things, build as you please. Most players are primarily concerned about tone and playability, in that order. Design and aesthetics are admired, but not if the tone and playability are not there. Construction traditions are important to some, but hardly all.
Author:  Brock Poling [ Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Filippo Morelli wrote:
Brock,
Respectfully I think you have mis-characterized the classical market. There is significant innovation, design variance, et cetera. Double tops, double backs, double sides ... all there before the steel world. Alternate sound holes, multiple different bracing methods. Carbon fiber is commonly used in necks. Necks are elevated, fixed. Classicals come with sound ports.
Lots of people talk about tradition, and there is lots of tradition. But there is lots of innovation as well. So I'm not sure where this idea of narrowly accepted criteria is coming from. Again no offense, but you're asking some I'm telling :-)

Hope this helps,

Filippo

p.s. You want to see one of my classicals with double top in chocolate cedar, with psychedelic cocobolo b&s, kasha bracing, upper bout sound hole, and cocobolo fretboard, bridge and headplate that has enough ink to fill a bottle? Not everyone is looking for a Torres replica! :-)


Truly, I get that. Your point is well taken. What I have perceived (perhaps mistakenly) is that the people who buy, play, covet classicals are an exceptionally fussy bunch. Much more so than the steel string players. I am just trying to figure out how that market ticks.

I know tone and playability are at the top of the heap in terms of "most important" but I am also curious about the other motivations.
Author:  Alexandru Marian [ Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Fussy is putting it nicely. And while at it, every guy wants something different...it isn't easy.
Basically there are maybe 3 camps: ultra trad, moderate, and rocket guitars. If you add a carbon rod, maybe lam the sides, but otherwise stick to the normal shape layout bracing etc. you will be somewhere in the center group. And those small additions, if you really want them, are used for countless years already by one guy or the other, some of them very famous.
But for the sweeter more Spanish sound you just have to build int the old, light style, and here there are parallels to be drawn to the old Martins.
Author:  Stephen Boone [ Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Brock,

I am with Fillipo on this one. I have played classical guitar(poorly) since I was 14 and it never occured to me that my guitar was supposed to be this, that, or the other. I do not know who would be so stuffy about a guitar but it is not the crowd I hang out with. I am, however, a beer drinker and never subscribed to "high class" perceptions about things. I just like the way classicals sound better than steel strings and play blues on mine all the time as well as struggle with serious classical and flamenco music. I say build the guitar YOU want. My guess is you will build more than one anyway (It is hard to stop improving). I am working up the nerve to try a steel string soon. I am thinking that I am not fond of steel string sound because I have never heard or played a hand built one until recently. I think that classicals generally have a richer more robust sound. I enjoy your guitars and cannot imagine that you would make anything but a fabulous classical with your asthetic sense. Keep the bracing light and go for it.
Author:  douglas ingram [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Spend some time on the Classical Guitar Forum and you'll gather a lot of opinions from people passionate about classical guitar.

http://www.delcamp.net/forum/en/index.p ... 51e61ab500

Many people on the OLF are already participating there.

I think that opinions and market forces are similar in the classical guitar world as it is for steel string. Alex described it pretty well: there are the ultra traditional, the moderate, and the avante garde.

Some traditional builders are finding that they are increasingly becoming the radicals just because they are traditional. Modern building methods are becoming increasingly widespread, and it does change the sound.
Author:  Brock Poling [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
As always, thanks for the info. I will check out that forum.
Author:  Michael.N. [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
I wouldn't concern yourself too much. Things like soundports, raised fretboards and double backs pre date Torres and Hauser anyway. Indeed it's Torres and Hauser who were the ludites. :-)
Author:  CWLiu [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
douglas ingram wrote:
Some traditional builders are finding that they are increasingly becoming the radicals just because they are traditional.

There's a local group and everyone there loves the "traditional spanish" sound of their cedar topped 664mm beasts - Ramirez 1a. A Hauser or a Torres style guitar would simply be too radical for them.
Author:  WaddyThomson [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
When you go to Classical Guitar Festivals at universities with guitar programs, you'll see, mostly, reasonably traditional designs, being played in competitions and master classes. Occasionally a double top, or a lattice, but not a lot of them. I think, with regard to laminated sides, it's not an issue, as Ramirez has been laminating sides for many years, and was, at one time, "The Classical Guitar" of choice by performing artists. Carbon fiber in the neck, bolt on necks, are reasonably well received in the market more than they once were. The opinions are rampant, however, when it comes to lattice and double top designs, both good and bad, though the double top seems to have more of the Spanish, "sweetness" than the lattice.
Author:  David LaPlante [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Ultimately, classical players don't give a dang about construction features.
They are interested in the sound of the instrument and don't really care how you have achieved a guitar that is louder than the hinges of hell, sensitive as angels wings to the lightest touch and with a sound tender enough to make grown men weep and powerful enough to shake down the walls.
How you do this is your business, and if you come close to any of the above attributes, then they will be interested in the how and why.
Expose yourself to as many different types of excellent classical guitars as possible.
As stated above, there is actually more diversity among them than in the steel string world. Get a sense of what you like, and that is what you should persue.
Author:  Gary L [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
I whole-heartedly agree with David’s comments. I’ll also add what I observed while exhibiting with David at the last Guitar Foundation of America convention: the overwhelming majority of players test driving my guitars would not be able to tell me what they looked like even after playing them 15 minutes or longer. They would, however, be able tell me every nuance they experienced in terms of sound and feel.

I would classify myself as a contemporary builder. I make elevated fingerboards, use carbon fiber in my necks, and build both traditional and double tops. Despite this approach, I constantly remind myself that we are standing on the shoulder of giants like Torres, Hauser, and others. What is important, however, is that I pay particular attention to their design principles rather than their aesthetic or legendary place in history.
Author:  wbergman [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Haven't read through all, so I might repeat. I saw top of the line Ramirez guitars at least 30 years ago with laminated sides. I think it was Contreras at least that long ago who was laminating backs, with spruce or cedar on the inside, and rosewood veneer outside. He called those "double top" long before that term was applied to laminated tops. There are very old classicals (100 yr?) with laminated tops in the upper bout, I assume just to avoid cracks. Many years ago, I saw one of the top current builders fitting a large prism of hardwood into a cavity in the neck, so it looked traditional but was reinforced (and weighted??). I do not know if he adopted that as routine, or if it was just experimental. We had threads regarding neck joint, of which there are many styles other than the "traditional foot". The double sound hole above and below the fingerboard with a solid soundboard between the end of the fingerboard and the bridge is about 100 years old in classicals, and occaisionally copied. There are also articles regarding sound ports now used routinely by many top builders.
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
There was a great quote on a violin maker's list recently:
"Violinists look at violins through welder's goggles".

The violin is probably the most constrained string instrument design of all, but it's mostly because of playability and tone factors. The technique involved in playing classical violin is so advanced that you can't change _anything_ by very much without rendering some part of the standard repertoire impossible. Add to that the fact that nobody has yet figured out how to duplicate the tone of those 'Old Masters' on a consistent basis, and you find a lot of makers slavishly copying simply because they have no idea of any other way. There have been many violins made with major aesthetic changes from the 'norm' and nobody bats an eye IF they sound and play well. You naturally see more leeway in the viola world, where the instrument lacks some of the acoustic 'perfection' of the violin, and there are more ergonomic considerations. Compared with steel string guitars, classicals have started down that road, but are not very far along it yet compared with violins.

Most of the constraints on the size of the box seem to me to be related to acoustics. Counterintuitive as it seems, it's easier to make a loud small guitar than a loud big one. Also, smaller boxes tend to be more 'treble balanced' and treble is what nylon strings lack. Matrin's 12-fret 000 is about the biggest box that I can think of designed around gut strings, and that got a certain amount of treble from the X bracing. If you're looking at a fan braced classical, stick with something in the Torres/Hauser size to begin with. Unless you're going to advertise it as a 'Torres model' or whatever I would not worry copying a shape exactly.

It seems to take a while for guitar makers to fully work out the implications of a new design. Fan bracing took about 75 years to develop from the time it was first introduced until Torres 'perfected' it. The designs haven't changed much since simply because they've reached the point where it's hard to improve them, or even duplicate the best ones. X bracing took much the same sort of time to really develop, I think. The modern stuff, sandwich tops and lattice tops, are still in an early stage of development, and that's one thing that makes them controversial; they are not yet as consistently 'good' or as consistently useful for the standard repertoire. They'll get there if they hold up as well as the traditional ones.

There are, as has been said, traditionalists who will simply reject anything new because it's new. I think more of them are builders than players.

So, if you stick with a more or less 'normal' size and 'standard' construction as regards external features, and make it look decent, you should be fine so long as it sounds good and plays well. Stay with a 'normal' (650mm) string length and such, and you're well on the way to getting it to play easily.

'Good' sound on a classical guitar is much more dependant on construction and materials than it is on a steel string. It's not an accident that so many pro steel string players use mass produced instruments, and very few pro classical players do. Be prepaired for a challenge in getting the tone right.
Author:  George Thomas [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
In a conversation with the long time owner of a high end classical retail shop (new and used) he said besides consistency and great sound what he wants are only guitars with dark woods for back and sides and specified EIR, BRW, Ebony and Honduran Rosewood. Tops could be Euro Spruce or WRC and, commercial rosettes rather than builder made ones. Construction methods, bracing, glue were not an concern. The combination was what he felt he could more easily sell. The exception would be for builders with a significant reputation, then there was greater flexibility.
Author:  Brock Poling [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
George Thomas wrote:
...and, commercial rosettes rather than builder made ones.


REALLY?!? I am stunned by that. I would have thought that would have surely been one of the most observable separation of the pros from the amatuers. I have to admit, doing a traditional tiled rosette looks a bit daunting (but also kind of fun). It is very interesting to hear that someone actually prefers commercially made rosettes.
Author:  George Thomas [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
I think the rosette preference was as much about cost as keeping things conservative. The store owner's other suggestions for $25.00 tuners rather than the Sloanes I had on and for an inexpensive case instead of the Eastman cases were clearly about keeping the wholesale price as low as possible.
Author:  Dave Fifield [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Um, Brock, if you "really have no intentions on making and selling classicals", then why do you care so much what the buying public will think of your soon-to-be-built classical guitar?

Just askin'.....

Dave F.
Author:  Alexandru Marian [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
I guess he wants to built a perfect masterpiece classical, really improvable and beyond any criticism, and then show it off to the classical crowd, for example at GFA and such. People swarming crying "build me one build one too" and the answer: nah sorry guys, I can't be bothered, I build SS. laughing6-hehe
Author:  Brock Poling [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Dave Fifield wrote:
Um, Brock, if you "really have no intentions on making and selling classicals", then why do you care so much what the buying public will think of your soon-to-be-built classical guitar?

Just askin'.....

Dave F.


That is a fair question. I guess more than anything it is personal pride. I want to build something that is respectable within the classical environment, and not something where it is obvious (to everyone but me) that a steel string builder built a classical. I think it is seems like a fun excercise. In a lot of ways it is kind of like starting at the beginning again. While I have the wood working skills and lutherie skills under my belt the Spanish method is so different that it really requires a whole new education. Some of that is the construction process, but another part of it is the mindset.

I realize to get really good at this you have to build many gutiars. Steel strings are my main emphasis, but I would like to understand the classical market and be competent in this area too. But I really don't have any desire to build and sell classicals.
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
If you're going to make your own rosette, dig out Eugene Clark's two artricles in American Lutherie, and read them carefully. Then think about them a lot.

The traditional tiles are actually pretty easy to make if they're not too big, but they take time. Clark's article is about the 'traditional' rosette, which uses a pretty small tile. It's more about the proportions, though; you can use all sorts of different things for the various bands just so you keep the proportions about right. The one thing they don't do much on modern classicals is shell. They used to; look at the guitar the Flamenco player uses in 'Casablanca' for a nice example of the stuff that was being made a hundred years ago. I'm going to be putting pearl dot-and-diamond inside and outside the rosette on the archtop classical I'm making for the next Montreal show, but that's another matter.
Author:  WaddyThomson [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More questions about classicals
Lots of builders just use some form of wood ring, either in segments or encircled in some purfling of some sort. Making tiles is a bit time consuming, but it's not hard. Here is the rosette on my #3.
Attachment:
P1020327 (Large).JPG
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/